Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

Tombo2001

Roadhawk wrote: »

I dont think the "jaywalking" law exists in Ireland but i do know its illegal to cross a road with a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing(think its 15 meters).



Yet so many offending cyclists go unpunished when jumping reds, having no lights (at night), cycling up/down Grafton/ Henry street...even in front of gardai...why the double standard?

And so many motorist go unpunished for breaking the speed limit - far more than the incidence of cyclists breaking red lights.

There is no double standard.

Most motorists go unpunished for petty offences. As is the case with cyclists.

Are you in favour, as a motorist, of every motorist receiving a fine, whenever they exceed the speed limit by miniscule amount? As you do, and I do, and everyone else does?

Lemming

RayCun wrote: »

Serious question - what is your source for this?

From TfL's annual Collisions & Casualties report 2014

In 2014 HGVs accounted for four per cent of all traffic but 38 per cent of cyclist
deaths and 25 per cent of pedestrian deaths. A longer term study shows that
between 2008-2014 HGVs accounted for 53 per cent of cyclists deaths.

And referenced from a BBC article:

In November 2013, six cyclists were killed on London streets within a two-week period, bringing the number of cyclists killed in London in the year to 14, nine of which involved a heavy goods vehicle (HGV)

And if memory serves me, almost all of those deaths were at the Elephant & Castle and involving HGVs due to a large volume of construction work nearby. As it was these deaths that spurred TfL and the Met to start a task force investigating WHY HGVs were killing so many cyclists and has lead to much public discussion around how to improve visibility from HGVs.

RayCun

mr spuckler wrote: »

i think it's both, but in your post on the previous page you asked about evidence of incidents where they were stopped at lights. in the sun link you'll see the cyclist was ahead of the truck as they were in the other examples i've mentioned.

they all seem to be the same (tragic) example

There are several articles about women cyclists being particularly at risk, and the argument is made that men are more likely to move to the box at the front of traffic while women are more likely to hug the kerb, and be stuck on the inside.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

some laws are there for safety reasons, some for functional reasons. it's clear the 'private car in bus lane' one is a functional one, whereas the 'not breaking reds' is primarily a safety based one, so it muddies the waters to compare them.

You are kind of right...

But think of it this way...cyclist breaks red light, car with green light has to slow down to avoid cyclist, cars behind first car forced to slow/stop, less cars get through lights = More traffic... it also has a functional importance.

Tenzor07

mr spuckler wrote: »

i think the thread is heading off in a new direction..

You're right, this thread is going waayy off... And getting into another debate on cyclists and red lights... If that's going to happen then go to the Motoring forum and start another thread on Casual speeding, bus lane use, mobile phone use, no insurance/NCT issues, bad vehicle brakes, worn tyres.. drink driving... See how far you get over there..

RayCun

Lemming wrote: »

And if memory serves me, almost all of those deaths were at the Elephant & Castle and involving HGVs due to a large volume of construction work nearby. As it was these deaths that spurred TfL and the Met to start a task force investigating WHY HGVs were killing so many cyclists and has lead to much public discussion around how to improve visibility from HGVs.

Yes, but I asked

I know large vehicles turning left are a major cause of death, but are they killing cyclists who were sitting in front of them at a light, waiting for green, and were run over by a vehicle which took off quicker from the light?

mr spuckler

RayCun wrote: »

they all seem to be the same (tragic) example

There are several articles about women cyclists being particularly at risk, and the argument is made that men are more likely to move to the box at the front of traffic while women are more likely to hug the kerb, and be stuck on the inside.

actually the one i'm looking for implies that men move further ahead of trucks at junctions whereby 2 women killed in close proximity to each other had moved right in front of the truck, in the advance stop box, and the truck had gone straight over them because the driver didn't know they were there. truck was going straight on in both cases.

Tenzor07

Roadhawk wrote: »

You are kind of right...

But think of it this way...cyclist breaks red light, car with green light has to slow down to avoid cyclist, cars behind first car forced to slow/stop, less cars get through lights = More traffic... it also has a functional importance.

Hang on, was the cyclist wearing hi-vis/helmet/lights... Was the car driver speeding or on the phone?

RayCun

Tombo2001 wrote: »

One is, what is the technically correct thing to according to the Rules of the Road or legally speaking.

The other conversation is, what is the safe thing for road users, particularly in this case cyclists. And the safe thing here is a separate off-road cycle lane. Which don't exist in Dublin, to a large degree.

But the answer can be the same for both questions. If there is a HGV ahead of you, and a road where they might turn left, stay behind them. It's safe and legal.

mr spuckler

RayCun wrote: »

Yes, but I asked

I know large vehicles turning left are a major cause of death, but are they killing cyclists who were sitting in front of them at a light, waiting for green, and were run over by a vehicle which took off quicker from the light?

and i provided an example of exactly that with pictures showing the moment of the collision. we don't have exact details or (thankfully) pictures for every collision. rather than going around in circles we should really think about cutting off the derailment of the thread sometime soon.

RayCun

mr spuckler wrote: »

actually the one i'm looking for implies that men move further ahead of trucks at junctions whereby 2 women killed in close proximity to each other had moved right in front of the truck, in the advance stop box, and the truck had gone straight over them because the driver didn't know they were there. truck was going straight on in both cases.

that's part of the implication in this article, related to kerb-hugging. Men are more likely to assertively take the lane, women to try to stay out of trouble - but in a counter-productive way.

RayCun

mr spuckler wrote: »

and i provided an example of exactly that with pictures showing the moment of the collision. we don't have exact details or (thankfully) pictures for every collision. rather than going around in circles we should really think about cutting off the derailment of the thread sometime soon.

But the assertion was that this is why most cyclists are killed.

(and the woman in that incident was sitting to the left of the truck that killed her)

V-man

Annie get your Run wrote: »

It seems to me there are definitely lethal junctions that need to be 'fixed'. I don't break red lights either on the bike or in the car but I'm not sure I'd be so law abiding if I had a highly dangerous junction on my commute.

And even on perfect junctions it can go horribly wrong.
This accident happened recently in the Netherlands.
Have a look at the junction layout and road-signs on the pictures and video in the article, fool proof.

http://www.destentor.nl/zutphen/fietser-overleden-bij-ongeval-met-vrachtwagen-in-zutphen~a29da975/

(Wonder why this design can't be done in Ireland)

Roadhawk

Tombo2001 wrote: »

And so many motorist go unpunished for breaking the speed limit - far more than the incidence of cyclists breaking red lights.

There is no double standard.

No there is a double standard. If a gard sees any driver on a phone, in a bus lane, speeding, without a seatbelt, etc. etc. they will absolutely pursue that driver and act on it and issue fine/points or whatever is warranted. The same cannot be said for cyclists committing an offense.

The drivers you mention not getting caught while breaking a speed limit is different.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Are you in favour, as a motorist, of every motorist receiving a fine, whenever they exceed the speed limit by miniscule amount? As you do, and I do, and everyone else does?

I am in favour of the laws being enforced. The gardai show discretion when doing a couple of km over the limit but thats it.

mr spuckler

RayCun wrote: »

that's part of the implication in this article, related to kerb-hugging. Men are more likely to assertively take the lane, women to try to stay out of trouble - but in a counter-productive way.

yes both were certainly making a generalisation that women cyclists are less assertive than male cyclists. i suspect chuchote (unless i'm confusing with someone else) might disagree in individual cases

RayCun wrote:

But the assertion was that this is why most cyclists are killed.

(and the woman in that incident was sitting to the left of the truck that killed her)

fair enough, perhaps someone made a bold statement that they didn't have backup for to hand. life is ever thus, let's try to move on.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

No there is a double standard. If a gard sees any driver on a phone, in a bus lane, speeding, without a seatbelt, etc. etc. they will absolutely pursue that driver and act on it and issue fine/points or whatever is warranted. The same cannot be said for cyclists committing an offense.

partly because the law does not regard a cyclist committing an offence to be as serious as a motorist using a phone.

RayCun

Roadhawk wrote: »

No there is a double standard. If a gard sees any driver on a phone, in a bus lane, speeding, without a seatbelt, etc. etc. they will absolutely pursue that driver and act on it and issue fine/points or whatever is warranted.

Not at all.

If a garda who is on traffic duty at the time, and looking for that kind of law-breaking, sees a driver doing one of those things, then they will pursue the driver.

Most of the time they aren't looking and aren't bothered.

(same when if comes to cyclists. When they decide to enforce laws on cyclists, they will pull people. Most of the time they aren't looking)

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

partly because the law does not regard a cyclist committing an offence to be as serious as a motorist using a phone.

So in essence, let it slide and do nothing?

magicbastarder

that certainly seems to be the attitude of many gardai.

mr spuckler

the last 3 posts all agree with each other (even though one is a question!)

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

So in essence, let it slide and do nothing?

an example, one i've mentioned many times here. i live near ballymun road and am used to cycling it. there's a bus/cycle lane from griffith avenue up to the metro hotel on the north end of ballymun village, both directions (2.5km each way). there's one specific black spot for people parking illegally in it during its hours of operation. i leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess where that is.

Tombo2001

Roadhawk wrote: »

No there is a double standard. If a gard sees any driver on a phone, in a bus lane, speeding, without a seatbelt, etc. etc. they will absolutely pursue that driver and act on it and issue fine/points or whatever is warranted. The same cannot be said for cyclists committing an offense.

The drivers you mention not getting caught while breaking a speed limit is different.



I am in favour of the laws being enforced. The gardai show discretion when doing a couple of km over the limit but thats it.

So you want the guards to enforce for the laws that others break, but show discretion for laws that you break.

(Sorry for being a smart ass, but this is how it reads to me......)

Tenzor07

Roadhawk wrote: »

No there is a double standard. If a gard sees any driver on a phone, in a bus lane, speeding, without a seatbelt, etc. etc. they will absolutely pursue that driver and act on it and issue fine/points or whatever is warranted. The same cannot be said for cyclists committing an offense..

Given the lack of general road traffic law enforcement in Ireland i'd say 1. That's your opinion and 2. so it's just purely anecdotal evidence

Tombo2001

magicbastarder wrote: »

an example, one i've mentioned many times here. i live near ballymun road and am used to cycling it. there's a bus/cycle lane from griffith avenue up to the metro hotel on the north end of ballymun village, both directions (2.5km each way). there's one specific black spot for people parking illegally in it during its hours of operation. i leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess where that is.

You don't mean......

....surely not.....

.........ah here.......


Look ....Firehouse pack those pizzas pretty quick, it only takes three minutes to nip in and out. Whats the big deal......

amcalester

Roadhawk wrote: »

No there is a double standard. If a gard sees any driver on a phone, in a bus lane, speeding, without a seatbelt, etc. etc. they will absolutely pursue that driver and act on it and issue fine/points or whatever is warranted. The same cannot be said for cyclists committing an offense.

The drivers you mention not getting caught while breaking a speed limit is different.



I am in favour of the laws being enforced. The gardai show discretion when doing a couple of km over the limit but thats it.

So it's Garda discretion when ignoring motorist offences but it's a double standard when ignoring cycling offences?

Your bias shines through as usual.

CramCycle

RayCun wrote: »

That is surely the only way to compare them.
If 100 cyclists do x, and Y happens 3 times, meanwhile 1,000,000 drivers do x and Y happens 100 times that means it is much more likely that a cyclist doing x will have result Y.

There is the sample size there as well, it is not as simple as you might think. I would trust the motorist statistic more than the cyclist one because of the sample size. Few papers would except your conclusions if this is all you had.

mr spuckler wrote: »

yes both were certainly making a generalisation that women cyclists are less assertive than male cyclists. i suspect chuchote (unless i'm confusing with someone else) might disagree in individual cases

In direct contradiction about female cyclists being more at risk, studies in Canada show male cyclists are far more at risk, generally the reasons being identical to the reasons given to female cyclists in the UK being more at risk. I know what the biggest factor change is, and it is not the cyclist.

magicbastarder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Look ....Firehouse pack those pizzas pretty quick, it only takes three minutes to nip in and out. Whats the big deal......

we ordered a firehouse pizza after rave reviews from a friend. it was barely middling.

RayCun

CramCycle wrote: »

In direct contradiction about female cyclists being more at risk, studies in Canada show male cyclists are far more at risk, generally the reasons being identical to the reasons given to female cyclists in the UK being more at risk. I know what the biggest factor change is, and it is not the cyclist.

UK accidents happen mostly in cities, where women are a relatively high proportion of cyclists, and Canadian accidents happen mostly outside cities, and men are a much higher proportion of cyclists there?

Tenzor07

magicbastarder wrote: »

we ordered a firehouse pizza after rave reviews from a friend. it was barely middling.

I find that the healthier option is homemade pizza as I don't want to support rapid pizza delivery by car! :pac:

Annie get your Run

V-man wrote: »

And even on perfect junctions it can go horribly wrong.
This accident happened recently in the Netherlands.
Have a look at the junction layout and road-signs on the pictures and video in the article, fool proof.

http://www.destentor.nl/zutphen/fietser-overleden-bij-ongeval-met-vrachtwagen-in-zutphen~a29da975/

(Wonder why this design can't be done in Ireland)

Does that truck say Driver Training on the side of it!! There will never be a solution that works 100% but yes looks far better than anything we have here - how more people aren't killed on our roads is amazing (thankfully). From the stuff I see daily the word fluke comes to mind.